I am deeply disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to try the 9-11 terrorists in civilian courts, whether in New York City or anywhere else.
My jaw dropped when Holder and Obama began offering their justifications. They clearly thought that they were being reassuring but they made it much worse. For example, in response to the argument that going through the civilian courts… you know, giving the terrorists status under the Constitution of the United States… meant leaving open such possibilities that these terrorists could get parole or even declared innocent, it was replied, essentially, “Not to worry, there is no chance that a guilty verdict won’t be returned.”
Oh? Then why have the trial at all? If you can assure us of a guilty verdict before the trial itself how is this not actually a show trial?
There are any number of tweaks to the system that will have to be made in order to have a fair trial under the Constitution. For example, how are we to provide the accused a fair jury of their peers? Do we need to import people from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to find men like the accused? Also, wouldn’t a change of venue be in order? If I was the defense attorney I’d ask for one, and since I wouldn’t expect anyone in America (excepting those who write for the Huffington Post, but again, they aren’t rabid Islamicists, so not exactly peers) to feel less than outrage over the attacks, I would ask for the trial to be moved to Europe, or Pakistan or failing this, back to Gitmo.
Now we note, in passing, that these men haven’t had their Miranda rights read to them.
Today I heard Obama arguing that we have had terrorists go through the criminal justice system before and bemoaning the ‘partisanship’ of those who have any objections.
If insisting that trials be free, fair, and impartial makes me partisan, then so be it.
In the race to be more civilized before the world by eschewing those horrid military tribunals, Obama seems hellbent on engaging in the same sort of ‘civilized’ fashion of the Soviets and any other tyrannical government putting on trials. It is a disgrace and unAmerican. Anyone who advocates for a show trial, even if they don’t give it that name, ought to be impeached. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
I here leave aside all the concerns that can be raised about chain of evidence or the potential release of national security secrets concerning methodology, sources, etc, or the possible dropping of charges rather than have such a horror (or revise them weirdly, as in the case of Jose Padilla).
We have military tribunals for a reason. They are tested by time, and the Supreme Court has said that they are certainly applicable in the case of these terrorists.
But there is something, apparently, that makes them abhorrent to Holder and Obama; so much so, that they’d rather have a show trial.